Saturday, July 23, 2016

To imagine that when a sheep dog goes crazy and goes after a lamb, though, it was the lamb’s fault for looking particularly vulpine, is to give permission to tyranny.

In every tyranny in the world, the victims are blamed. Under communism you were often called crazy and sent to a madhouse instead of to prison, but it comes to the same. There was always a justification. “He caused panic by speaking against the government.”or “He was spreading despondency” or “He was really evil and one dayy when he chewed gum, he just threw the wrapper on the sidewalk.

Even in petty tyrannies like the SJWs, where you don’t lose your life, only your livelihood, people can be attacked for writing a respectful article about sf/f female writers and editors. But it’s okay, they had it coming. They used the word “ladies.”

Stay alert. Remember this. Do not let yourselves be manipulated into piling in on the side of tyrants because victims aren’t perfect.

No one is perfect. This is no justification for using disproportionate force against them.

It's a good metaphor. The fact that sheep dogs are necessary doesn't mean some of them aren't crazy and need to be kept away from the sheep. And the fact that some sheep dogs are unfit for their occupation does not mean that wolves don't exist, or that sheep dogs are unnecessary.

102 Comments:

I'd like to put something into the water, the case of Eric Garner. That was the guy put into a choke hold by an NYPD cop. He later died. He was selling cigarettes outside of a corner store.

This is a tragic incident. However, I'm mindful of the way NYC boosted cigarette taxes and created a black market. A pack of cigarettes in NYC now goes for $10 dollars. Additionally, it is illegal to sell cigarettes individually but selling them individually creates alternatives within the black market. Rather than to pay 10 dollars for 20, a person can pay two dollars for two. Not everyone wants to spend 10 dollars in one shot.

My point: while the death of Eric Garner is tragic, I am of the belief that this is an instance of a two headed monster, police overreaction in the enforcement of a poorly thought out municipal policy. In my opinion, this same dynamic is also evident in our war on drugs.

My point: while the death of Eric Garner is tragic, I am of the belief that this is an instance of a two headed monster, police overreaction in the enforcement of a poorly thought out municipal policy. In my opinion, this same dynamic is also evident in our war on drugs.

Just a thought.

It's a good and valid point. The governments in the US (on all levels) are over stepping their bounds. The left pretends the founders would somehow approve of their actions. If you read any amount of their writing its hard to avoid the conclusion that they would have revolted. I think it would shock people to know how long ago they would have revolted (I would put it about a hundred years ago.).

Never the less, I think we are rapidly approaching the breaking point in this country. Either the boot is going to come down hard and crush the populace or they are going to cast off the current government. I am not sure which is going to happen.

@1: Local governments, especially in Blue states, are ravenous for any source of revenue they can get their hands on, hence the "cops as revenuers" phenomenon. After the '08 financial crash, my town boosted fines for basic traffic offenses through the roof.

The topic is the necessity of having a police force while requiring them to be held responsible when they break or damage their wards. And the guy made a good point but don't worry about not getting it. I'm sure nuance and logic is hard when your so consumed by racism.

@4, People who think "antagonizing the police" -- which in Garner's case consisted of protesting his innocence and trying to push their hands away from his neck -- is a justification for state violence, are a big part of the problem.

Yes, insane taxes and regulations which create black markets and turn police into armed tax enforcers are also to blame.

Actual cases of abuse the victims are perfect like white Dylan Taylor shot in the back by a black cop with no warning. The cop was supposed to be looking for a Hispanic criminal with a red hat. Here is the video of it. http://www.thedailysheeple.com/graphic-and-disturbing-video-of-police-shooting-of-dillon-taylor-released_062015

Since actual cases of abuse tend to be committed by non Asian minority cops, we can assume any story the lame stream picks up will be like the 2 child sex predators that BLM shot 19 cops over.

while the death of Eric Garner is tragic, I am of the belief that this is an instance of a two headed monster

Eric Garner would not have died had he not been obese + sickle cell, that combo can kill blacks just from being placed prone(face down on belly). Something Milo should know in case his standards drop http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1799937/ Megan's law violator Garner survived being arrested 30+ times & a black girl Sargent was in charge of the group that arrested him the last time.

I am of the belief that this is an instance of a two headed monster, police overreaction in the enforcement of a poorly thought out municipal policy

If NYC had not repealed the 20oz soda ban because of racism, its likely that 2 consenting adults sharing a 20oz soda would be beaten by nanny Bloomers stormtroopers. Its the little laws like that people are willing to argue with cops over.

In my opinion, they were persons who placed greater priority upon the power, and interests, of the state over those of the individual (which is a group of voluntarily assembled individuals using the democratic processes to express commonly held values and interests). The intent to replace the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution came from persons who preferred a central authority with the power to veto state legislation. I am referring to Hamilton, Madison, and Edmund Randolph as per his Virginia Plan. The ideas of these persons overwhelmingly dominated the 1787 convention.

My point is that the Founders, who were a political faction, set in motion a dynamic in which the power of national government was disproportionately weighted against regional authorities; that they attempted to consolidate differing regional authorities under a centralized interest. Some of the things we are seeing, in my opinion, results from the application of political theories that were canonized in their plan of government, The Constitution. And when I say "The Constitution", I mean the general body of that document not the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was something opposed by most of those at the Convention. Protecting individual rights and the rights of regional authorities was, at the very least, a secondary consideration.

Disclosure: My sentiments lie with the so-called Anti-Federalists, and I tend to view the "Critical Period" as a partisan argument rather than a factual statement of a particular set of conditions.

@4I am making the case for societal distortions formed by excessive government intervention. If we are discussing the case of Garner, we are also discussing low income Black culture. In my opinion, low income Black culture is a product of excessive government intervention as per LBJ's Great Society programs.

In my opinion, Garner should never have resisted arrest. In my opinion, Garner's actions are behaviors rarely seen in middle and upper class Black culture (AKA "Bourgie" Black folks). While I have little sympathy for the miscreants in low income Black culture, I still hold the belief that many of these miscreants are the offspring of the failed policies of both national government and the Civil Rights movement which destroyed stability in the Black community via integration and its support of Great Society subsidizing dependent and dysfunctional behaviors.

Garner shouldn't have faced arrest in the first place. Selling cigarettes on the street corner is not a violent crime, it's a paperwork violation. Why should it be treated any differently from a traffic ticket? The cops should have handed him a ticket and moved on. If he refused to show up and pay it, then at some point an arrest might have been necessary, but it wasn't that day.

Unless you think the next time you're driving 5 mph over the limit, the cops should haul you out of your car, cuff you, and drag you down to the pokey to wait your turn to plead guilty and pay your fine.

@15I'll agree with that. The central idea for me is to never resist arrest, especially when you are knowing breaking the law. I've had minor encounters with white policemen. My rule of thumb is to be cool and play the game. I'm not the only Black person who thinks this way. Additionally, I never saw those cops as "white" but as regular dudes like me. If you get an attitude and are disrespectful, expect something to "jump off". This is not a racist thing but a human nature thing.

If you're going to light a stage, do you start with spotlights, or candles?

Girl Kitchen - yer mean and racist and a stupidhead

Reality is racist. I am honest. Which statement do you disagree with?

Cail Corishev - People who think "antagonizing the police" -- which in Garner's case consisted of protesting his innocence and trying to push their hands away from his neck -- is a justification for state violence, are a big part of the problem.

So he antagonized the cops, verbally and physically.A much bigger problem is dindus and chimp-outs that justify police hostility.What percentage of the population is going to be able to look past the fires of baltimore to your principled objection to state violence?

Selling cigarettes on the street corner is not a violent crime, it's a paperwork violation. Why should it be treated any differently from a traffic ticket?

I'm struck by a truth that has been brought up on several blogs that enacting a law, enforcable by arrest, potentially makes a violation of that law a de facto death penalty offense. If the police can arrest/detain you for selling cigarettes, driving without a license, putting pink flamingoes in your yard/etc., then they have the authority to kill you if you resist arrest.

The fact that we have so many laws, many of them really over trivial offenses, but being de facto death penalty offenses, is not good. In a just society, passing a law involving the possibility of arrest should require discussion over whether or not the politicians involved believe the death penalty is a fair one for violating that law.

When I was a cop, I was frequently bored. However, I do not recall being so bored that I would find it necessary to 'Harass' a citizen for violation of a penny ante statute.

This is not to say that I was perfect. I am certain I handed out some tickets where a simple warning would have sufficed. But that this event even occurred suggests serious institutional problems within the police department.

Selling cigarettes on the street corner is not a violent crime, it's a paperwork violation. Why should it be treated any differently from a traffic ticket

If you saw the video you would know even traffic tickets can get you shot if you argue with cops. Do you think if I was arrested 30+ times before along with child sex offences like Garner the cops would treat me different after running my plates then they would seeing my only crimes have been driving fast?

Even more importantly Garner was “out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation.” Meaning he could go to jail for anything that would just be a ticket. When people are on bail or probation they have less rights.

@21I am of the belief that small and principled government can only be accomplished with a small and sovereign republic. The Constitution attempted to form a limited government by consolidating a series of small regional authorities, of differing values, under a large central authorities.

I am considering the idea that the Declaration of Independence is flawed; that instead of forming a "United States of America", Jefferson, and those delegates to the 2nd Continental Congress should have sought independence as an alliance of sovereign and independent states. The colonies should have sought independence as separate nation-states rather than a confederation of states formed as a nation.

I feel like Hoyt's argument works equally well as an argument for supporting the police.

Then your comprehension of the argument is flawed. BLM isn't going to shoot you and your property with expensive HK machineguns. And if you do repel the thin blue of devils. They'll come back with tanks to run over your home and set it on fire, with you and your children inside.

There's a big difference between being fired for holding the 'wrong' political view , versus breaking the law and resisting arrest. In the former, it's overreaction. In the latter, the victim brought it upon himself by aggravating the cop and breaking the law.

Even more importantly Garner was “out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation.” Meaning he could go to jail for anything that would just be a ticket. When people are on bail or probation they have less rights.

@17, They had Garner surrounded, and he couldn't have run five feet without getting winded. When he started getting frantic as soon as they put their hands on him, they should have backed off and tried to calm him down. Yes, backed off. That's what "peace officers" would have done: maintained control of the situation while giving the citizen a chance to accept it. Being arrested is traumatic even when everyone is pleasant and professional. Thoughts race through your head: "Should I make a run for it?" "What if these aren't real cops at all, but fake cops sent by my enemies, and I wake up tied to a brick at the bottom of the river?" But he'd been through it before, and may have just needed a minute to relax and go along.

But "backing down" is heresy to law enforcers, who have been taught to dominate every encounter from the start. If they let go of a citizen and back up a step because he says, "Let go I can't breathe," why, we'd have anarchy! No one would respect their authoritah anymore!

It doesn't affect me, since I don't live in a city. I'll be sitting out here in civilization, shaking my head as the violence increases. But if police don't want to read about cops getting shot every day, they're going to have to get back to being peace officers somehow, even if it's scarier than arming up and dominating everyone, dealing quickly with any "disrespect."

@29I appears that you are presenting the idea that at some point, authorities must realize when they've "won" through the usage of overwhelming numbers. In other words, they should have realized that the facts on the ground formed an impossibility of escape for Garner. I understand that.

Here is my question: what is the next move when people like Garner do not recognize this impossibility and continue to resist? I can understand the need on non-lethal responses like a stun-gun.

My earlier point still stands, a convergence of poorly thought out municipal policies enforced by cops. The best I can say is that the case of Garner is one that should offer changes in police training - non-lethal (or less physically endangering) methods of enforcement contextualized by the level of threat to the public.

Eric Garner would not have died had he not been obese + sickle cell, that combo can kill blacks just from being placed prone(face down on belly). Something Milo should know in case his standards drop http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1799937/ Megan's law violator Garner survived being arrested 30+ times & a black girl Sargent was in charge of the group that arrested him the last time.

lol can you imagine the police having to say 'Hold-up! Put your hands behind your back - but before you do, I need to see your medical records to check for pre-existing conditions that can result in accidental death.'

Fat fuck brought it upon himself. Should have not broken the law for the 30th time.

Then your comprehension of the argument is flawed. BLM isn't going to shoot you and your property with expensive HK machineguns. And if you do repel the thin blue of devils. They'll come back with tanks to run over your home and set it on fire, with you and your children inside.

Look at the stats. Blacks-on-white homicides 2x more common than the reverse. Both blacks and whites more likely to die at the hands of other blacks than the police.

They had Garner surrounded, and he couldn't have run five feet without getting winded. When he started getting frantic as soon as they put their hands on him, they should have backed off and tried to calm him down.

He was 6+ feet tall and weighted 300 pounds, an intimidating presence. Someone that big can easily knock out somebody. That's probably why there were many cops and why greater force was necessary.

But "backing down" is heresy to law enforcers, who have been taught to dominate every encounter from the start. If they let go of a citizen and back up a step because he says, "Let go I can't breathe," why, we'd have anarchy! No one would respect their authoritah anymore!

The vast majority of stops and apprehensions are without incident, but the occasional death (especially when then victim is black and the cop is white) gets a disproportionate amount of media coverage, creating the false narrative that there is some sort of systemic 'war on blacks' by police.

@33, I wasn't clear; when I said "it" doesn't affect me, I meant the urban shooting war between BLM and cops. Yes, the overall militarization of the cops certainly could affect me. That's probably why I bother to talk about it, because the escalation that they excuse by pointing to drugs, terrorism, and crime in the cities also shows up out here in the hinterlands.

@32, Yes, at some point it may be necessary to stop trying to reason with a suspect and wrestle him to the ground and cuff him. They just hadn't gotten anywhere near that point with Garner. Were their donuts getting cold or something?

Accusing him of the serious crimes of "disrespect" and "aggravation" just makes the point about how cop-worship has turned them into something dangerous, both to us and now to themselves.

As long as people excuse the cops' worst behavior and don't make them scale it back, they will increasingly be used as targets. People who admire the cops ought to want to do something about that.

Unfortunately, the Negro community sees arrests as sporting events. If you can intimidate fight, or even beat down a police officer, you get status points from your peers. It's always been so.

Look up the "Clearwater 12": twelve black cops who were sick of policing the Negro Community in Clearwater Florida in the 1960s.

They sued for racial discrimination because they had to deal with Negros who would attempt to beat them down several times a day. They would get home with their uniforms torn and dirty after a day wrasslin' with Negro miscreants. Whereas the white officers policing the white community would get home squeaky clean. They wanted to police a nicer, whiter community with nicer, whiter criminals.

@38 I agree with you. However, let me say this in defense of cops. It isn't enough to just hold cops to account for their behavior. We also have to quit criminalizing bullshit and quit using cops as 'Revenue Agents' instead of 'Peace Officers'.

In junior high and high school, I raised sheep. Over the years, we had several sheep dogs. The best guardian (not the best sheep worker, but the best guardian against coyotes) we ever had went crazy. He started attacking and killing my grandfather's calves as they were born. We had to put him down. I think we told my younger sisters that he ran off.

Cail, you're imagining pleasant alternatives to a problem rather than thinking about the problem.

Watch the video I linked. You have stop imagining and start seeing, if you want to make sense.

Big Bill - Unfortunately, the Negro community sees arrests as sporting events. If you can intimidate fight, or even beat down a police officer, you get status points from your peers. It's always been so.

Problem is their males are disposable. While we're trying to get them in line or into prisons, their females are spawning new offenders. It's expensive and our enemies use the byproducts against us.

@40I'm going off topic. Your usage of the term "Negro". I chuckled. "Negro" is an epithet used by Black people against other Black people. It is synonymous with "Uncle Tom". I do consider people like Garner, Freddy Gray, Traynon Martin, Michael Brown, and Black Lives Matter to be Uncle Toms.

He died due to underlying morbidity that the officers could have not foreseen. it's not like the officers had any premeditated intent to kill him. The vast majority of apprehensions do not result in deaths.

@46No, we need to have police officers do their patrols with file cabinets so that they can identify law breakers by their names, access their social security numbers, sift through the available files, find the appropriate names, extract the related folder or file, read carefully, assimilate the necessary actions, devise a plan of action based on both the assimilated information and the incident at hand, and then act appropriately. I can envision a routine traffic stop lasting at least 30 minutes. Oh wait, I have an idea. Each patrol can have with it, a deputized psychologist and social worker.

@40I'm going off topic. Your usage of the term "Negro". I chuckled. "Negro" is an epithet used by Black people against other Black people. It is synonymous with "Uncle Tom". I do consider people like Garner, Freddy Gray, Traynon Martin, Michael Brown, and Black Lives Matter to be Uncle Toms.

Derek Kite wrote:34. You are an idiot. A guy lost his life for selling cigarettes. That is the end result.

You can stand on your head and make up stories that make you feel good, oh he was black, oh he was fat.He was a chronic and unrepentant scofflaw, like most of the coonmunity.

Since we're supposedly people with foresight and low time preference, consider just how far you would have to go to keep Eric Garner from becoming a victim of his own pigheadedness. You couldn't even give him a ticket, because if he didn't pay you'd have to arrest him for contempt or whatever and you'd be right back to fighting a 300-pound idiot to bring him in.

Now consider the broader effect. "Broken windows policing" would be right out. Is it worth someone's life for jumping a subway turnstile? Of course not... but catching the people with warrants (chronic scofflaws, remember?) slashes other crime including violent crime.

When a criminal on parole resists police questioning to see if he's re-offending, he's forfeited any right to my sympathy.

This does not mean that the police are justified in doing anything they want. It means that Eric Garner's death is not an example of abusive police practices.

aPeople keep saying "sheepdog" like it's a single ting. There are different types of sheepdog.Some are herd gurad dogs, like Maremmas and Komondors. They live with the sheep, look like sheep, smell like sheep and protect the sheep.

Some are pastoral dogs, like Pulis, Shepherds and English sheepdogs. The live in the house but work with the sheep. They keep the sheep in line, protect them where needed and restrict them to where the farmer wants them.

Some like Australians and Borders Collies are drovers. They are used to round up the sheep and drive them to slaughter through fear and intimidation. They are often kept on a chain when not working because they can't be trusted not to kill the sheep, by running them to death.

And no type of sheepdog ever gets a second chance to kill a sheep, EVER.

@49 Actually these days cops practically do have a file cabinet with them. A lot of departments now equip cars with laptops that are connected to the department network. Doesn't take anytime at all to run plates, check records.

If fact, they probably could add checking medical history without too much trouble from a technical standpoint. Privacy might be an issue though.

Just thinking off the top of my head, I wonder if cops don't have too much information. Back in the Antediluvian period when I had a badge, it was time consuming to run plates and such. So we didn't do it very much.

But it also meant that each encounter was focused only on the situation before me. Take Garner for instance, his rap sheet wouldn't have been a factor. I would have seen a guy hawking singles in front of a store. I probably would have just told him to find another street corner.

One thing I have noticed is that among 'tech' immigrants, whether they are Chinese, Indians or even Iranian or Jews, there is a total lack of understanding of and support for the second amendment.

Since they did not ask if their respondents were citizens or born in America, and given some of the salary numbers, I would not be surprised if they managed to get lots of 'tech' immigrants out of those 1009 people they surveyed.

@62 For starters at the community level, private sector options are available. Run it like a business, many problems go away.

Eliminate (or ignore) NFA and GCA and other infringements while embracing the true meaning of 2A at the individual level. More states are implementing Firearms Freedom Act and Constitutional Carry legislation - that should be supported and individuals should exercise those rights. States should begin supporting their citizens who exercise those rights and run afoul of FedGov.

An armed society is a polite society, as they say. If people refuse to be 'sheep', the need for abusive sheepdogs under the color of law is no more.

He was a chronic and unrepentant scofflaw, like most of the coonmunity.

Yes, but what does that say about our idiot laws? Garner died because of the cigarette law. Make all the gyrations you want, but the fact is, anything police make an arrest or even write a ticket, it's an emotional event and there's a chance the whole thing goes south and someone dies.

Every law we send police out to enforce has the potential to get someone killed, so we should take those laws seriously.

We don't.

Garner wasn't just out on bail for selling cigarettes, he'd been convicted of the same thing something like 7 or 8 previous times, plus several other convictions. But he was still walking the streets.

So NYC doesn't take it's law seriously enough to put someone away for repeatedly violating it, but they'll send armed police out to possible kill someone while arresting them for it. That's complete irresponsibility on the part of NYC lawmakers.

Not only did Garner die for their law, but since his death was one of the founding events of BLM, the cops who died in the attacks since then, and all the people who will die in the riots to come, they'll all die in part for the sake of a law the people who passed it don't take seriously.

This little narrative is totally on topic: Black cop, drunk jew, white city

If you look in the comments there, unless deleted, you will see I say he must have been so drunk that he remembered a narrative film from the gay jewish film festival as real life. Read it, the best part is where the moslem taxi driver takes him home & wont accept any money from him. They then (((talk))) into the wee hours of the morning.

Take Garner for instance, his rap sheet wouldn't have been a factor.

I am going to call BS on this. I have recognized the same person being brought in by cops for medical clearance multiple times. Someone arrested 30+ times will be known to the locals.

Two non Asian minorities used ambulances as taxis 1363 times in one year in Fresno, but the first responders had to treat each encounter as if it was legitimate(((or better call Saul)))while everyone knew about them. This is a cost the founding fathers couldn't not imagine people dying because of ambulance abuse, while burning thru thousands of taxpayer dollars a week. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002307983

Garner do not recognize this impossibility and continue to resist? I can understand the need on non-lethal responses like a stun-gun.

Rodney King got out of his car and attacked cops while so high on crack a police issue stun gun had no affect on him. Lamestream didn't show him attacking, but the full video let cops walk free.

I looked at my savior. Oh, crap…a Muslim. Dave the noted GOP Islamophobe just got saved by a fucking Muzz. I expressed my gratitude, drunkenly and effusively. The young cabbie smiled...

We sat in the Travelodge parking lot for a half hour, talking. He didn’t care about taking other fares, and he wouldn’t accept a dime from me. And I insisted, repeatedly—hell, I was going to pay him four times the fare. But he wouldn’t take it, no matter how hard I tried.(Jewy-jew trying to give away money the most unbelievable part) He saw me get safely to my room and he drove off... I thought about the irony of the evening: A law-and-order conservative hassled by a cop, a neocon polemicist saved by a kind Muslim who went the extra mile for a Jew-y stranger.

Ah, "scofflaw"! Add that to "disrespect of cop" and "aggravating a cop" on the list of crimes an American can commit which will make too many of his fellow citizens shrug and say, "Eh, he probably deserved it."

basementhomebrewer wrote:The governments in the US (on all levels) are over stepping their bounds. The left pretends the founders would somehow approve of their actions. If you read any amount of their writing its hard to avoid the conclusion that they would have revolted. I think it would shock people to know how long ago they would have revolted (I would put it about a hundred years ago.).

Yep. I find the official explanation for WWI implausible. Not just that it could all happen over one guy, as if everyone really cared that much about Franz Ferdinand, but that governments would all be so driven by loyalty and honor that they would have no choice but to obey their secret agreements. Whaaat?

I bet it was simply the case that lots of governments needed a pretext for a war to distract from one thing or another. See, that's more plausible because they had hard currencies, so their economies would be tied together through the market for precious metals, so they would all face economic crises at around the same time. And for the U.S., that was after about half a century of imperialization from the Civil War and Reconstruction, so I bet there were also infringements of rights to distract from...

Jack Amok wrote:Yes, but what does that say about our idiot laws? Garner died because of the cigarette law.The law has the purpose, among others, of making it hard for minors to buy tobacco and get addicted to it before they develop adult judgement. People who sell "loosies" are quite directly frustrating that purpose of the law and often sell to minors when businesses, which would lose their tobacco licenses if they did, do not.

Do you know how many of the health problems in the "Black community" are smoking-related?

Make all the gyrations you want, but the fact is, anything police make an arrest or even write a ticket, it's an emotional event and there's a chance the whole thing goes south and someone dies.So no more traffic tickets for speeding, careless/reckless driving, lack of insurance, no license? Sounds like Somalia, and if you like it so much why don't you live there?

Every law we send police out to enforce has the potential to get someone killed, so we should take those laws seriously.Implicit in the very idea of "law" is that people aren't idiots and will generally make a good-faith effort to follow sensible ones (in other words, English-type people). The coonmunity generally is and too often won't. This is why we need to put them in a separate polity, like Liberia. In the mean time, dead idiots will happen. It is part of the price of trying to integrate what cannot be.

So NYC doesn't take it's law seriously enough to put someone away for repeatedly violating itWhat do you want New York to do, formally execute loosie-sellers to avoid having them die during arrests pursuant to attempted searches? There was this Greek guy named Draco, you might want to look up the adjective he inspired.

@26 paradox "Then your comprehension of the argument is flawed. BLM isn't going to shoot you and your property with expensive HK machineguns. And if you do repel the thin blue of devils. They'll come back with tanks to run over your home and set it on fire, with you and your children inside."

Funny how you lack the most basic imagination when it comes to BLM and other black militia groups, who would very happily and easily start massacring ordinary white families if they could, but then turn into a hysterical nutcase when it comes to the police.

Don't let your tinfoil hat fall off.

I will take my chances with the imperfect police over the rampaging savages of BLM and their criminal allies, thanks.

Same reason, incidentally, why every sane person should vote for Trump over Hillary.

Daniel Pantaleo used a choke hold on Garner. The medical examiner determined that Garner's death was a direct result of the choke hold. Choke holds are prohibited by NYPD regulations.

In any other field or profession this would have resulted in an involuntary manslaughter conviction against Pantaleo.

Neither Garner's background, nor his behavior, nor his health have anything to do with it. These things would have been factors if Garner had died due to the use of an otherwise legal technique. But because Pantaleo used an unlawful choke hold none of those things matter.

Unfortunately we do not live in a world with rational jurors. Officers who break the law are not only protected by judges and DAs, they are often protected by juries who worship blue. The grand jury failed to indict given a clear cut case that should have been an easy conviction at trial.

There are lots of good suggestions for reducing the number of incidents like the one we saw with Garner. Most of these center around reducing the nanny state and/or training cops to be peace keepers and not law enforcers.

But you're still going to have officers who break the law. Which means you still have the problem of holding officers to the law. And I don't know how you solve that problem when the average person simply refuses to hold an officer accountable where they are in the position to do so as a judge, attorney, or juror.

Way to miss the point, Mr. Rational. I laid it out clearly enough, but I'll do it one more time for you.

If a law is important enough to send armed police out to enforce it, than it's important enough to remove people from society who repeatedly violate it. If a law is not important enough to remove people from society when they repeatedly violate it, than it's not important enough to send armed police out to enforce it.

A white rancher, LaVoy Finicium was murder this year by the gang in blue. It's funny how you bootlickers lack basic imagination enough to know it's blue vs everyone else. In the name of "cop saftey", cops are going to be ones confiscating your 2A rights and they will throw you to the BLM unarmed.

@83 "A white rancher, LaVoy Finicium was murder this year by the gang in blue."

He was murdered by the FBI, you dishonest fucking idiot. Lumping the FBI together with cops would be like lumping Vox together with NK Jemisin because they're both ostensibly science fiction writers, you dolt.

"It's funny how you bootlickers lack basic imagination enough to know it's blue vs everyone else. In the name of "cop saftey", cops are going to be ones confiscating your 2A rights and they will throw you to the BLM unarmed."

Except the police have yet to weigh in on the 2A debate, despite countless opportunities to do so.

And last I checked, BLM has the backing and support of Obama and pals, while the cops have his hatred. So the former has more political power than the former. Ergo why they get "space to riot", and the cops are told to stand down.

But by all means, keep helping BLM and their criminal cohorts by keeping your fire focused on what should be a large source of our allies, cops.

No one here is a "badge-licker", but there is a particular tinfoil-hat wearing cuck moron.

Jack Amok wrote:If a law is important enough to send armed police out to enforce it, than it's important enough to remove people from society who repeatedly violate it. If a law is not important enough to remove people from society when they repeatedly violate it, than it's not important enough to send armed police out to enforce it.You keep talking in handwaving terms without specifics. Remove, how? Eric Garner was removed from society. That appears to be the whole of the complaint... or that it was accidental rather than deliberate.

We used to send out men with Luser Attitude Readjustment Tools to perform on-the-spot corrections of undesirable behavior. That more or less worked even with dindus, who respond to immediate painful stimuli better than delayed measures. Now LARTing is deemed a violation of snivel rites. What, specifically, do you suggest in this case?

I would be happy to have relocation of chronic scofflaws and their families to other polities as one of the options available to the justice system. Eric Garner would probably have had enough difficulty selling loosies in Monrovia that he would have had to go on a diet, which would have been good for him and at least some of his other family too.

At least Garner would have had Liberia. Sadly, in the case of chronic scofflaws like itinerant families who have practiced theft as a lifestyle for generations, there are no countries to take them.

@1 "... Garner. That was the guy put into a choke hold by an NYPD cop."

Actually it was NOT a choke hold, which is illegal even for cops; it was a *take-down hold* (entirely different thing).

"A contrarian analysis based on evidence and law that Eric Garner was not killed due to excessive force by the police, but by his own severely compromised physiology, respiratory disease, heart disease, morbid obesity, and refusal to comply with lawful arrest."Here:http://www.podcastchart.com/podcasts/law-of-self-defense/episodes/law-of-self-defense-podcast-010-eric-garner-not-a-victim-of-unlawful-excessive-force-by-police

@11 "Its the little laws like that people are willing to argue with cops over."

Because, of course, it's the COPS who write and pass the laws?! *I* absolutely do NOT want cops deciding which laws they will and will not act on. I want legislators only passing laws that are appropriate. (Yeah, I know, I'll get those right after my unicorn arrives!) But, like soldiers, cops are supposed to follow -- and in their job description -- enforce 'legal "commands"; and when a shopkeeper calls the police to complain about a law breaker selling singles in front of his tore, then the cops JOB is to enforce that law. Not decide if they will or won't enforce this (stupid) law THIS time!

@16 "Garner shouldn't have faced arrest in the first place. Selling cigarettes on the street corner is not a violent crime, it's a paperwork violation. Why should it be treated any differently from a traffic ticket? "

Because Garner had ALREADY been arrested more than THIRTY times, including assault and grand larceny! (Garner’s first arrest at just 10-years-old.) and he was, at the time of his death, "out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation."

No, they weren't there to arrest Garner for any of those things. They were there to break up a fight nearby, then they saw Garner and someone told them he was selling cigarettes again, so they came over and decided to take him in. The fact that he was out on bail may have given them more grounds to arrest him, but it doesn't make their methods look any better. If they hadn't coincidentally been called there by the fight, he would have lived to cheat the government out of its sin taxes another day. Don't try to sell it as the cops doing what they must to arrest a dangerous criminal, because that's crap.

What a perfect example of how hard it is to explain things to midwits. I've laid out a perfectly straight-forward theory, simplified it until even a moron could understand it, and the midwit ties himself in knots.

You keep talking in handwaving terms without specifics. Remove, how?

Prison is the usual way. Some people advocate for a death penalty, but I think the State is sloppy enough maybe we should avoid that.

Eric Garner was removed from society. That appears to be the whole of the complaint... or that it was accidental rather than deliberate.

Yes, you see, you do understand. When you have a law that is casually enforced, sometimes resulting in penalties, sometimes not, then people who find themselves randomly subject to penalties are offended, and have a right to be.

I'm not saying anything complicated. Enforcing a law is a serious thing and can have serious consequences. We shouldn't do it for things we don't think are serious crimes, and people who habitually commit serious crimes shouldn't be walking around free in society.

Jack Amok wrote:Prison is the usual way. Some people advocate for a death penalty, but I think the State is sloppy enough maybe we should avoid that.

So where do you draw the line? When someone is only a minor danger to the public, like someone who consistently speeds by 10 MPH and drives without insurance, should we NOT get law enforcement involved because if we got serious about it we'd risk hurting them if they resisted arrest?

WTF? Seriously, WTF?

I actually had a friend a while back who complained when she was ticketed for 15 MPH over the speed limit in a 35 MPH zone. Her whine was "EVERYONE goes 10 over!" I only shook my head (I never had a speeding ticket in my hometown) but her lack of insight into the problem and yours are eerily similar. Note, "she". Your POV is more feminine/particular than masculine/principled.

Eric Garner was removed from society. That appears to be the whole of the complaint... or that it was accidental rather than deliberate.Yes, you see, you do understand. When you have a law that is casually enforced, sometimes resulting in penalties, sometimes not, then people who find themselves randomly subject to penalties are offended, and have a right to be.So far as the evidence before me shows, the enforcement of the tobacco provisions of New York law is neither casual nor random. Black people get caught more often because they are stupid and violate the law openly in view of LE. This is the same thing they do with drugs, public consumption of alcohol, and so much else. It's TNB, period.

Garner was being checked because he was loitering in a place and manner like he would to peddle "loosies" as he had before. There is nothing casual or random about checking a parolee behaving suspiciously. Garner resisted being frisked, and it was his resistance that led to his death. Why do you take the BLM side in this?

I'm not saying anything complicated. Enforcing a law is a serious thing and can have serious consequences. We shouldn't do it for things we don't think are serious crimes, and people who habitually commit serious crimes shouldn't be walking around free in society.Resisting a lawful police action is also a serious thing. You keep trying to sweep that under the rug. You can stop it; I won't let you get away with it.

I think you're complicating the comparison. The role of sheepdogs is to protect the sheep from predators, nothing more. Any comparison of the police/sheepdogs with a goon squad employees for populace control sounds conspiratorial. If you're gonna done that then the door to multiple comparisons is opened. The wolf was really a victim...the Shepard won't get reelected because of high sheep death by wolves...insert your own idea...

Individual cases vary, but most Blue on Black deaths are simply a consequence of having Blacks living in a White society. There's a low intensity conflict going on, and there are some casualties. Sometimes, mistakes are made. What else would you expect? Call me a racist if you will, but I generally reserve my concern for police abuse of innocent Whites.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.